---

AMENDMENT OF THE LAW

We need to consider all the R and D funding pots in the round. The hon. Gentleman was right to refer to the one that he did, but he will know that there are separate funding pots for research and development in Scotland—SPAR, SPAR plus and SEEKIT—with different programmes available in England, and some UK-wide ones. Some of the money that used to be in the pots to which he referred may now be in R and D tax credits. Yes, that is wrong, but we need to view the issue in the round and work out how we can increase total R and D expenditure rather than concentrating on what has been taken from one particular pot. What the Chancellor did say today was a great deal about the environment. Perhaps the Government can answer a couple of questions. When will they finally act to end disparity in charges for connection to the national grid? This is an old story. It costs more than £20 per kW to connect to the grid in the north of Scotland, but a subsidy of £8 per kW can be paid in the south of England. The Government promised to do something about that. I raised it with the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West and Hessle (Alan Johnson). during last year’s Budget debate, and with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 30 October last year. The Chancellor also made great play of carbon capture and storage, but I fear that we have heard all that before. In the 2005 Red Book, he said"““The Government is therefore examining how it might support the development of CCS in the Climate Change Programme Review, including the potential for new economic incentives.””" In his pre-Budget speech in the same year, he said"““Carbon capture and storage protect the environment from carbon emissions by containing them at source””.—[Official Report, 5 December 2005; Vol. 440, c. 612.]" In his 2006 Budget statement, he said"““Following a joint study with the Norwegian Government, we have found that carbon capture and storage in the North sea can reduce emissions from gas and coal power stations by 80 per cent.”” —[Official Report, 22 March 2006; Vol. 666, c. 294.]" In the 2006 pre-Budget report, he said"““Today, Norway and Britain are together launching the first feasibility study for a new infrastructure for carbon capture and storage under the North sea.””—[Official Report, 6 December 2006; Vol. 666, c. 309.]" The Chancellor announced today that there would be a competition, about which the Minister for Trade will tell us at some point today or in the near future. Talk is cheap, and there has been an awful lot of it. The President of the United States has made available a $90 million tax allowance for a carbon capture and storage pilot project in the US. After all the warm words we have heard, intended to reinforce our green credentials, the Chancellor had an opportunity today to announce how much would be provided for the Peterhead CCS project and how the funding mechanism would work. The Chancellor referred many times to senior citizens. What he failed to do was end the shame of means-testing and introduce a proper living pension. Like the hon. Member for Burnley (Kitty Ussher), I welcome the change in income tax for pensioners—the new threshold will help those who were previously just above the threshold and were missing out—but one in five pensioners in Scotland still lives in poverty. Means-testing has been extended, and nothing was said today to give me any comfort. With real pension inflation at about 9 per cent., the Government have missed an opportunity to provide a living citizen’s pension and to index-link it properly. I do not recall the Chancellor’s saying anything about the Olympics, although I know he has done so on a number of occasions in the past. That may be because he, or a future Chancellor, has written a blank cheque. The cost has already reached £9 billion, and everyone assumes that it will ““go north”” to £15 billion or £20 billion. This is an open-ended spending commitment, and—as with the war in Iraq and the decision to extend the life of Trident—we will be paying the costs for generations to come.